chankya

I don't think its the US or Israel. I personally think its Pakistan and by extension KSA having nukes that worries the powers that be in Iran.

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

smalltexan

Yes, I can see that Pakistan would pose a greater threat than the US or Israel, due to their too close a connection with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. And the Taliban is beginning to make a comeback. Is Iran more worried than the US? Not really, I suspect. I think they are keeping their eyes open, for now.
And Iran IS a threat to Israel, and Russia is taking advantage of the situation by providing them with their old arsenal of SCUDs. Iran's possession of these is the worry now, while they are diligently pursuing their nuclear program.
N. Korea is pretty weak in comparison to Russia and China, so I don't believe Iran would be too worried there, either.

zraver

Take awa thier ability to threaten and put them under punishing sanctions until they clean up thier act. You don't manage nuclear weapons states.

The United States has a track record of failing to at agressively enough to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. If we would act soon enough, we would not have to lock ourselvess intoan endless and ultimately insustainable seige of forgien countries far form our border.



In the final estiamte, it is better to have Iran dissove than to have the Middle East consumed by nucelar warfare. If we don't act evnetually Israel will and then the gloves are off. Israel with far les sin terms of capability may well go nuclear first under the principle that its better to ask forgiveness than permission.



I would say the same to you. This is not an issue that jsut cropped up with us hawkish types yelling Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. This issue has been building for years, and each day Iran not only gets closer to real capability but has one more day to harden thier assets agaisnt attack making any eventual miltiary action less sure of sucess with every passing day.



I dissage, I and many other observers fele the Norks would ahve fallen apart with out fuel and food given by the west that kept the army fit and in control. They didn't have nukes then, they do now, way to go Bubba.

Act now while we still can might be the best one.



Hrmmm, so whats Germany and Japan? I would say the US has as often been a proponent of Democrac as it has been an instrument of tyranny. Which is sad enough for America, bit now time is better than now than to turn over a new leaf and really start advocating rule by the people for the people, and of the people.

Bush had some great ideas, the problem is he couldn't find his a s s with both hands and a road map.

Arguing original sin is pointless. No one in the American or Iranian goverments is still around. In 1979 the US was not assisitng the Shah in maintaining power, but iran sur ehad no problem attacking the US and blaiming an event decade sin the past.

I never called for a puppet goverment, I think Iran's citizens are perfectly capable of creating a govemrent that meets their needs and conforms to international norms without international supervsion just as soon as the clerics lose thier veto of secular power.



Washington has bene opposing Iran, supporting the GCC for decades now. Washingotn might not be able to remember where yesterday's crisis was or why it was, but it never ever forgets where oil comes from.

Only to a point, despite Iraq I trust the CIA to be able to monitor industrial scale nuclear activity.


Starving French peasants did pretty good, starvation will not stop a revolt although it might spark one. When starvation is used as a weapon the critical ingrediant is a different ethinic/cultural group willing to enforce the starvation on the targeted group.



Thier neighbors do not pose a credible threat lacking all but the most rudimentary offensive capabilties.

A Line in the sand bacled by resolute action is very effective. If some one like Bush 41 was in office Iran would be singing a very different tune. If Bush 43 hadn't bungled Iraq, Iran would likely be singing a different tune.

I think alot of what they are doing is bluffing. If they can get from A to G then have to make concessions taking them back to E they still gain.

and just as often- Open your damn eyes



Which is what I percive Iran doing as we debate, the problem is of course is to get Iran out of that corner we will track pain across the kitchen floor.

We are dealing with elected polticians and clerics, neither class is well know for adequate risk assesment, or genuine concern for those they govern/rule.



Its not one dimensional at all. Iran will either be moved by gold (the loss of it, the gain of it, or the promise of it) or blood (the loss of threatened loss of it). All magor international crisises are solved with either blood, gold, or both.

and I know which one

I dunno, do you think Churchill was wrong for preaching the coming of the Iron Curtain? Was he just out to sway the masses? I think your tryign to trvilaize the military option by understatign the level of threat Iran poses.

my .02

Swift Sword

Zraver,

At the risk of preaching to the choir, sanctions will not do it alone.

However, though military action in the forms articulated might set back their nuclear ambitions, it will not take away their abililty to threaten us, our alliances or their neighboors.

It will not, if we are to use Iraq as a case study, advance the interests of the United States in either a polilcy relevant or long term time frame.

I may have slept through some of the last almost 40 years of my own reccollection, but, IIRC, managing nuclear weapons states has been a staple of U.S. foreign policy since the days of my father before me.

An insustainable seige of foreign countries far from our borders was good enough for Ronald Reagan (though smart money knew the Sovs were going to collapse in ten years anyway regardless of what Reagan did).

A failed Iran will do no more for the U.S. than will a failed Iraq.

What evidence do you submit that the Middle East will be consumed by nuclear warfare if the United States does not bomb Iran?

This thing in Iran is much too important to leave to the Israelis, the Europeans or anybody else.

Every major policy interest of the United States in the Middle East and Central Asia at this time and for the foresseable future is tied to the Iranians. We cannot have other Powers of any color, stripe or capability dictating the solution to our problem in this matter.

If Israel launches the first nuclear strike in the Middle East then I fully endorse the United States mounting the second: airburst a B83 dialled towards maximum a few miles over Tel Aviv simultaneously with a B83 laid down at a low to medium yield on the Temple Mount accompanied by a B83 assembled at maximum yield several miles above Jerusalem. Simultaneous dismantling of Israeli assets outside of thier borders to be implemented as scheduling permits.

It is vital to the fate of this Republic that other Powers not **** this up for us; we can create a good God damned sheer distilled purple poisoned goat **** by an electric green donkey dick from outer space easily enough on our own throwing an uncalled for tantrum and smashing things without their help and they ought to be put on notice.

The next President of the United States of needs to make it a plank that the White House, despite previous management, is not an outhouse for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or HM's Foreign Office, for that matter.

Yeah, I have been thinking about it for the last 20 years.

Some years before OIF, after ODS, there was a pretty informed opinion that the United States did not possess the intelligence or strike assets to deliver the policy goals of WMD counter proliferation via the mechanism of military adventurism. Guy made a good case.

OIF bore this out.

As it stands, the proven odds of success of military action in a counter proliferation role seems to lag the proven track record of other offsets.

Why reinvent strategic failure when you may be able to manuever to strategic success?

I was reffering to Libya, not North Korea.

Contradicts the admonition of Jomini, methinks, and he was a pimpy cat.
Germany and Japan are partial exceptions to the rule and even then at significant expenditure of resources (though I fully approve).

However, given the facts of the 20'th Century attempts at nation building, duplicating the same feat in Iraq is at best case a 4:1 proposition and those are not exactly the best odds.

[quote]I would say the US has as often been a proponent of Democrac as it has been an instrument of tyranny. Which is sad enough for America, bit now time is better than now than to turn over a new leaf and really start advocating rule by the people for the people, and of the people.

He thought he could talk Wilson and act Johnson/Nixon. It sounded funny at the time so there was no incentive to buy it.

How many members of the Pasadran and their families do you suppose, prior to the Revolution, so you think fell afoul of the U.S. backed Shah's SAVAK?

Don't you think that might affect their judgement, at least a little bit?

Why reinforce bad taste?

I was under the impression that this had nothing to do with oil .

Naturally; they would not act if they did not have a slam dunk case.

Those starving French peasants did pretty good with what interested, foreign parties supplied them.

Those parachutes carried mana from Hartford, et al., not mana from Heavan.

To the East: a country whom has executed than one diplomat and been opposed. Has a new government that was elected with and maintains power with the help of a hostile Power.

To the Southeast: a country of questionable stability with nuclear arms, delivery systems and a hotbed of ideologically opposed radicals.

A short flight across the gulf to the Southwest, there is a power that is vehemently, ideologically opposed state who has actively worked on Iranian flanks and against Iranian interests.

To the West: Iran shares a border with a state who has made war on them in the past with the aid of another Power, the same Power who is threatening their interests there now and propping up the place.

To the North: Iran's neighboor has nuclear weapons and a proven track record of designs on their territory and welfare.

It is foolish and intellectually disingenous to think that the Iranians do not percieve a threat.

Bush 41's adults have spoken their piece to the children.

A much better crowd; I liked them then and I like them now.

Yep, and they will probably get away with it.



They are open; why do you think I say what I say?

The client and the contractor might consult on the kitchen remodeling plan.

Military juntas and other unelected idiots have not demonstrated much concern, either.

I have heard it said that "the first lord is never the first servant".

Wrong.

You are failing to account for Jomini.

The 42'nd President discredited the former and the 43'rd President thoroughly discredited the latter. Which do you favor?

Of course Mr. Churchill was grandstanding!

Five or ten people in the hundred saw the Iron Curtain coming years before the Fulton speech.

Mr. Churchill had his own strategic concerns and wanted to have U.S. support to offset them.

Churchill needed to scare and agitate people because 90 to 95 scared and agitated people in a hundred are how you manipulate democracy, not five or ten calm, rational, educated people...that kind of turnout will get you nowhere and you should not even bother to court them; focus groups and polls are much more useful when articulating policy aims.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

VarSity

There are artuclues in English newspapers today saying that Iran is dropping troops into Iraq via helicopter and planting bombs to attack british troops.

If his is true, seem like Iran is stepping up its attacks, and is asking for trouble!!

Simullacrum

This has been going on for months.
Top Brass and Intelligencne have know about it.

The problem is how do you handle the situation, technicaly it is war, so do we go on an all out war in current circumstances, we still havent managed to conatin Iraq or afghanistan....so do we start another new front, with Iran.? Which is not going to be easy.
the Iranians have been sly and clever, by using this very situation to there advantage. Mahmoud is playing a strong bluff, and trying to reel us in, He has nothing to loose in then end.

VarSity

I dont think a ground invasion would be a good idea, however a swift kick in the balls might be in order.

FibrillatorD

Please link.

Please link.

gunnut

FOXNews.com - Iranian Intel Officers Captured in Iraq - U.S. & World

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C8DFC9...-91FB74CFD530/

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun

U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ - Free Preview - The New York Times

Power Line: Iranian Soldiers Captured In Iraq

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

FibrillatorD

I'm looking for a definitive footprint that proves the "suspicions," as one of your own "links" puts it, that there exists some Bigfoot Iranian official state-sponsored plot to directly undermine American efforts aimed at stabilizing Iraq and instituting a working democratic government.

FOXNews.com - Iranian Intel Officers Captured in Iraq - U.S. & World
Hardly a smoking gun to indicate a broad Iranian plot to undermine American efforts to stabilize the country.

Likely, whatever kind of soft money power-brokering is not only understandable, given the bloody history between Iranians and Arabs, but is to be expected. Any state would prod into Iraqi affairs if put in Iran's place.

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem - January 3, 2007 - The New York Sun

U.S. IS DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN RAIDS IN IRAQ - Free Preview - The New York Times

Free preview? (bites tongue)

Power Line: Iranian Soldiers Captured In Iraq[/quote]

Can anyone else load this?


Its quite rational for Iran to take steps to ensure that whatever militia/party/regime/government ultimately wins control of Iraq is friendly towards their neighbor to the NE. But there are so many anonymous military and government sources and documents, the views conflict about the extent of Iranian involvement with Iraqi religious-political groups like al-Mahdi and AQI. I wonder if the Iranian officials know exactly what their Quds are up to?

Does anyone know the hierarchical structure of this Qud organization? What exactly are their aims? All the information about it mentioned in the above links is murky.

In terms of predicting what actions the Quds or any other Iranian pseudo-official group takes next in Iraq, it seems we might first try to accomplish that goal by extending broader and more frequent communication lines between the pertinent American, Iraqi, and Iranian elements before sounding the war bells. Recognize that the stakes are high for all involved parties, and keep things as official as possible.

Certainly our national interests don't overlap completely with Iran's. But they do in many areas, and we should start at those places when coordinating efforts and opening communications, if we haven't already done so. However, wherever Iranian groups take deliberate measures to kill or otherwise undermine American efforts to bring security to Iraq, it should of course be stopped by whatever means necessary. But lets not rush to label this an all-out war when it simply isn't.

zraver

If we defeat her ability to threaten the worlds oil supply her abiltiy to decively influence world events is curtailed, plus we can knock her nuclear ambitions and modern infastructure into the stone age

lets not refight the last war, but (if indeed miltiary action is the only way)instead use our abilites to win strategically. Mission accomplished will be when the tankers sail free from fear and a nuclear Iran is nothing more than a novel idea for Tom Clancy.



Well we sure succeeded with India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, oh wait 40 years with the exception of Israel they were non-nuclear, quite a sucess rate



Look at the US debt, the endless spending has to end sooner rather than later. This means the window for siege is limited.



Not quite sure I agree long term. Driving the oil prices into the realm of long term economic ruin could well be the death knell of the oil economy. if we get off oil, Arabia and Persia can go back to irrelevance.

see below

I agree, but Israel's survival may be on the line.

Thing is the Israelies and the EU are saying the same thing.

Ya right lets kill millsions when Israel a non-signatory to the NPT breaks zero international laws and launches tactical strikes on facilties (not cities) that wil be used one day to threaten the very survival of the Jewish State- thnaks no thanks.

Twiddling our thumbs for years while the Iranians progress towards a bomb meets that description pretty accurately.

[/quote]The next President of the United States of needs to make it a plank that the White House, despite previous management, is not an outhouse for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or HM's Foreign Office, for that matter.[/quote]

And that won't do sqaut to stop Iranian scientist from creatign a bomb.



[/quote]Yeah, I have been thinking about it for the last 20 years.[/quote]

You, me, and a lot of others, tobad no one is a posistion to act since Reagen has had the balls to do anything but think about it.



that was nearly 20 years and 2 miltiary generations ago.

No it didn't apples and oranges.

Really, its been tried once. In 1990 Iraq had WMD's, in 2003 they didn't hmmmm

Lets first define strategic success fro top to bottom and then revist this concept.



Ya, the Norks really scuttle the the lets talk concept.



Not really a contradiction. Jomini was never against the use of force, he was agaisnt the substatution of force for policy and the misuse of force. Both can be avoided, but the use of force might not be avoidable.


No they are not excpetions they are the rule, to them we must add France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy etc all of Western Europe. What it shows is the level of commitment and timetable thats needed. This wily nilly aproach doesnt work.

see above



That might be the best description of Bush I have ever seen.



Ever heard of a concept called get over it? Iran refuses to, they declared war on US in 79 we need toa ccpet that declaration at face value. They don't want peace, to bad I might say. I'd rather deal with Persians than Arabs.



You didn't get that impression from me, oil will always be just below the surface of any crisis in the Gulf.



Wow, you were only off by about 150 years, hint: have fun eating cake



Then let them build/aquire defensive arms, entering the nuclear race now vs Israel doe snot give them a deterent capability it only invites attack thanks to thier goverments offical statements and actions towards Israel who must conclude that a nuclear armed Iran will use them.



I agree



It is up to us to make sure A never reaches B when it is all settled.





I dissagree, I think that even if open you have a far to optimistic view of the situation.



To bad Iran is into hardcore DIY and isn't interested in settlign anything.



I tell you truly sir, NO is not a word to use with Princes. I agree excpet that sometimes you have to tell them NO and mean it on pain of war.



[/quote]Wrong.

You are failing to account for Jomini.[/quote]

Really, can you give me an example of a crisis diffused by somethign other than blood or gold either gain/ loss or fear of loss/ promise of gain of it? Just one example?



I prefer action



Churchill identified a very real threat and moved to block it (action) histoy has proven him right.

my .02